how far we are the people secular in though word and deed ? comment
.
.
.
.
ans de do plzzz
Answers
Answer:
India is a secular nation with positive connotation toward religion. Unlike other European nation from where secularism is inspired in India constitution, India encourages, nurtures and supports all religions equally, This is to ensure that India will provide a fertile ground for religious harmony and brotherhood among citizens. But with the rise of growing regionalism politics and ideology of opposition party to destructively criticise ruling party is bad precedent. This leads to polarisation on the ground of regionalism, rich-poor divide, pro-industrialist vs pro-environmental agenda and most importantly communal.
For achieving great success in economic development, minimising economic inequality and becoming a developed nation, India needs peace period within it’s boundary so as to channelise nation’s political energy toward developmental agendas. From time to time, definition of Secularism are twisted by politicians for their short term gain. Often citizens are also found to be in confusion state when issues are presented by media in half-cooked way. This leads to disharmony and disenchantement among people. Hence there must be sensitisation among politicians, media person and most importantly awareness among children about real meaning of Article 25 for Freedom of Religion and Secularism so that we can focus on nation building and moving toward dream of making India Vishwaguru in all aspects.
hope this will help you❤
Broadcasting Ministry’s Republic Day advertisement showing the Preamble to the Constitution in its original form, a debate has ensued. Should the words socialist and secular, injected into the Preamble by Indira Gandhi during the Emergency in 1976 via the 42ndAmendment, be dropped or retained? The short answer is, drop Socialist and retain Secular. Of course, the BJP, having described itself as a party of Gandhian socialism, might find it struggling to explain its antipathy to socialism.
Our first prime minister’s easy conflation of Fabian socialism with post-colonial progress has much to do with our fetish for socialism. But BR Ambedkar’s objection to the inclusion of ‘socialist’ in the Constitution holds as true now as it did then (and when Mrs Gandhi nailed it on the wall for her own political purpose): “I do not see…why the Constitution should tie down the people to live in a particular form and not leave it to the people themselves to decide it for themselves”. The tag has been used for decades to describe a country which, apart from gesture-politik, hasn’t ever even been truly ‘socialistic’ (like, say, welfare state nations), never mind ‘socialist’. Now that we’ve junked the pretence, we could junk the vestigial word.
Dropping ‘secular’, however, is another matter. Ravi Shankar Prasad is right when he says India is secular even if we don’t use the word to describe it. Yes, a tree is a tree even if you don’t call it that. And, unlike being ‘socialist’, being ‘secular’ is not a policy setting. But at a time when there are voices which aspire to live in an India that doesn’t equally respect all religions, the act of dropping ‘secular’ would amount to an exclusionary act — akin to suddenly refusing to call a tree a ‘tree’ —that changes the basic structure of the Constitution.
# it's stand by secularism on word and. deed